Forest Service says media needs photography permit in wilderness areas

The Oregonian ^ | September 23, 2014 | Rob Davis

[null and void]

[T-Bone Texan]

"...These are the same guys who became Nazi’s against simple tourists in the Olympic National Forest during the recent democrat congress “sequester”...."

Correct, but it was far more than just Olympic Nat'l Forest. It was all National Parks and Monuments.

These public employees showed their true colors during the sequester, and I will never respect them ever again. That goes for Park Police as well as regular forest rangers. They are our enemy.

They have been weaponized. They are not on the side of freedom and liberty.

[TheOldLady]

How did I fall off your ping list, LucyT?

Please reinstate me?

[a fool in paradise]

Tell Ansel Adams...

He got in before the 1964 legislation. And even then it may not have been applied to gallery and poster artists at that time.

[LucyT]

Uh, oh!

My apology.

You’re added again.

[a fool in paradise]

I’m a landscape photographer and I must admit I haven’t checked on this issue in a few years, but the interpretation of the law was that as long as it’s just a photographer, a camera, and a tripod you wouldn’t need a permit. If it’s an elaborate commercial shoot with lights, models, or assistants, then a permit is necessary. However, as we all know, interpretations have been known to change.

"Commercial" photographic license probably (but I have no idea) includes gallery prints, posters, stock photography, greeting cards, advertising, book covers, album covers, etc. And apparently "journalism" itself is commercial (you got paid for it, didn't you?).

We have a public funded privately held park in this city. You have to pay to take graduation photos, engagement photos, and quiencierra photos there (about a hundred dollars a day, if I recall).

[TheOldLady]

Thank you. Sorry I unsubbed. I was in a mood, but not at you!

[a fool in paradise]

It doesn't remove, deface, or change one atom of the wilderness thus is not an exploitation.

To a reasonable person, yes. But to anticapitalists (and the sort who would Barry-cade public monuments out of spite), "exploitation" would include profiting off of the imagery of (same with those who trademark a likeness and go after Elvis or Marilyn Monroe impersonators, both long dead).

[LucyT]

Every once in a while someone gets dropped, probably because I’m in a hurry and don’t notice, esp if they are at the end of the list. I’ve dropped one freeper three times over the years. She has been very patient with my goofs, and it is appreciated.

[Graewoulf]

This “Photography Permit” is a tax, PERIOD.